setup_status

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Reports only key NAMES and set/missing — never key values', a key security behavior, and that the optional check is 'FREE... never a paid generation'. It also explains the return structure (vendor keys, managed-key state, per-capability readiness), though it does not explicitly state read-only or idempotency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately sized but every sentence contributes value: purpose, usage, return content, check behavior, and privacy guarantee. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids fluff, though the check behavior is slightly redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given its simple parameter set (1 boolean) and no annotations, the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, trigger conditions, return details, cost implications, and data privacy. It lacks specifics on error handling or exact vendor key names, but for a setup status tool this is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter 'check' already has a detailed description in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond repetition. The phrase 'never a paid generation' reinforces the schema's 'no paid call' but does not introduce new semantic meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks SuperCMO media-generation key configuration and capability readiness with the specific verb 'check' and resource 'SuperCMO media-generation keys'. It is labeled the 'setup doctor' and explicitly distinguishes its diagnostic role from sibling generation/list tools by instructing to 'Call this FIRST' for setup or configuration issues.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit scenarios for use: 'when a user is setting up SuperCMO, asks which keys they need, or a generation failed with no_provider_configured'. It does not directly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context and 'FIRST' positioning make the intended usage clear relative to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.